Lang v. The Board of County Commissioners of The County of Coffey
| Decision Date | 06 June 1925 |
| Docket Number | 25,974 |
| Citation | 118 Kan. 723,236 P. 853 |
| Parties | ETHEL HARRIS LANG, as Register of Deeds of Coffey County, Appellant, v. THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF THE COUNTY OF COFFEY, Appellee |
| Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Decided January, 1925.
Appeal from Coffey district court; WILLIAM C. HARRIS, judge.
Judgment reversed.
SYLLABUS BY THE COURT.
1. PUBLIC OFFICERS--Liability of Register of Deeds--Funds Paid to Deputy. The facts concerning the payment of county funds for clerk hire to a deputy register of deeds in a county having more than 10,000 and less than 15,000 population, and the relevant statute pertaining to the salary and allowances for fees to the register of deeds in such a county, examined and held, that the register of deeds is not liable to the county for public funds paid on order of the board of county commissioners to such deputy on any mistake of law or fact for which the register of deeds was not responsible, and where there is neither claim nor pretense that the register herself received any portion of the moneys sought to be recovered by the county.
2. SAME. Certain arguments presented by appellee to uphold the judgment against the register of deeds considered and disapproved; and judgment in favor of the register directed.
L. H. Hannen, of Burlington, G. H. Lamb, and W. E. Hogueland, both of Yates Center, for the appellant.
Ray S. Pierson, county attorney, and Joe Rolston, of Burlington, for the appellee.
The plaintiff, register of deeds of Coffey county, brought this action to recover a part of her salary which the board of county commissioners withheld from her because of the following circumstances:
Prior to July 1, 1922, the population of Coffey county was above 15,000, and the register's salary and allowances provided by statute were $ 1,500 per annum, and $ 600 per annum for clerk hire. (R. S. 28-114.) The same statute gave the county commissioners discretionary power to make additional allowances for clerk hire where necessary to conduct the register's official business expeditiously.
On July 1, 1922, the population of Coffey county fell below 15,000 inhabitants, and consequently the compensation of the register automatically changed to $ 1,400 per annum plus one-half of all official fees earned by her in excess of $ 350 in any one quarter. (R. S. 28-114.) No specific allowance for clerk hire is made by statute for registers in counties of less than 15,000; but probably the general authority of the county board to supply necessary clerk hire to expedite the official business of the register of deeds is no less in counties under 15,000 than in others. At least the statute is open to that interpretation, but the point is not vital in this lawsuit, so it need not be determined.
By R. S. 19-1202 every register of deeds is authorized to appoint a deputy, although there is no express provision for the payment of such deputy. The deputy usually serves as clerk and draws the statutory allowance for clerk hire, and where no statutory allowance is made the deputy either gets no pay, or such pay as comes out of the register's own pocket, or such allowance as may be made by the county board under its general powers mentioned in R. S. 28-114, and perhaps in other relevant statutes.
In December, 1921, the plaintiff register of deeds named W. M. Phillips as deputy. The minutes of the board read:
"Board now approves the appointment of W. M. Phillips as deputy register of deeds."
Of course this approval was not required by law, but the appointment was probably submitted for the board's approval because if the deputy was to get any pay for services it would be as clerk and not strictly as deputy, and the county board's approval of the person appointed, while not perhaps absolutely necessary, was quite desirable. The county board is the supervising general manager of all county affairs, and it is a good practice and tends to good local government when county officers so conduct their particular offices as to meet the approval of the county board.
On January 1, 1922, the county board adopted the following resolution:
"On motion made and carried, the board ordered . . . that the deputy register of deeds be paid $ 60 [per month]."
Here again, we infer, this relates to the compensation allowed to this functionary not precisely as deputy, but for the clerical services performed by the deputy.
For December, 1921, and January, 1922, Phillips drew $ 50 per month--the proportionate monthly allowance for clerk hire under the statute. But from then onward, for February, March and April, Phillips filed claims for $ 60 per month, which were approved by the register, approved by the county attorney, allowed and ordered paid by the county board, and the money was paid to Phillips pursuant thereto.
On May 1, 1922, Blondell Bayall succeeded Phillips, by appointment, as deputy register of deeds, and she regularly drew a monthly allowance of $ 60 from May 1, 1922, to January 1, 1924. Her vouchers were approved by the plaintiff as register of deeds, and were approved by the county attorney, and were allowed and ordered paid by the county board, and paid accordingly. It would appear that no notice was taken at the time of the effect of the slump in population on county officers' salaries and allowances. Neither was any particular notice taken of the fact that during the time that clerk hire was authorized and fixed by statute, prior to July 1, 1922, the register's deputy or clerk was paid $ 10 a month more than the law expressly allowed.
During the...
To continue reading
Request your trial